Side note: The purpose of this article is not to express my personal experience with pansexuality but to look at the correlations, economics, and current mainstream ideas of pansexual, panromantic, and polyamorous related ideas. Of course I could mention my experiences with specific genders and make generalized statements of how I think binary stereotypes have effected my platonic, romantic, and sexual experiences but I find it more interesting how #PANPOLY is composed of multiple movements, concepts, and ideas that over lap historically which question and deconstruct the value of social roles in human relations.
Surprisingly I’m coming to think that the most underrated difficulty in sexual and romance culture are how social roles are projected unto us, instead of looking at each other as individuals. I don’t blame anyone, but we do already live in homonormative society according to Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University, Lisa Duggan.
HOMONORMATIVITY: "A politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption" (Duggan 2003)
The issue is that cis-gay culture is still affected by heteronormative assumptions brought on my historical traditions and practices. Personally I find it difficult to exist as non-binary in a society that is inherently still binary, not just in gender but in sexuality. Possibly LGBTQ+ and Queerness have become mainstream symbols for sexual minorities but the continued disconnect are trans studies distinction between sexuality and gender. Without making this distinction essentialism can become a symptom of the people. I don’t often refer to romance culture as dating culture, but if you knew me and my writing I have my own difficulties with the concept of dating. Romance on the other day portrays an angle more specific and unique to particular moments. Being a romantic obviously stems from expression of love but engaging in sexual and emotional acts in a post-gender society still breeds assumptions and actions that are performed after conversations of consent are held...provoke and question the value of romanticism as a whole, as a concept.
From the act of sex to the act of romance.
Romanticism has been typically defined as a movement and more specifically movement emphasizing “..inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual.” according to Apple’s Dictionary.
Primacy. The fact of being more important. Which almost goes entirely against my previous conversation on polyamory. Does monogamy even exist in a polyamorous society? If we can embrace, race, gender and sexual diversity why are we technically behind on romance diversity?
My experiences of romantic interaction has been wildly different throughout my life, to the intergeneration to gender differences with each new interaction you would think force us to rethink our assumptions when approaching individuals of romantic interest.
It is impossible for me to discredit those who have come before us, those who have been gay identified a part of the gay community...have at the same time marginalized trans and non-binary people within the community. Toronto in particular has now sprouted a chaos and entropy; pockets of communities not just in a racial minories, but gender and sexual minorities. And to be honest, it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate myself with a gay community that in still built on a fundamentally binary framework.
The word itself, Gay...imply’s a binary of opposite sexs...and historically was invented by the medical institution has signifiers of sexual “deviance” of the time.
Of the time. Historically, it makes complete sense that these communities are still thriving and necessary but to use homo normative language such as “top” and “bottom” already places ridiculous assumptions of social roles on a gender and neuro divergent, spectral, temporal society. These assumptions can be damaging and confusing to individuals that don’t even view their body as feminine or masculine, giving and receiving, etc.
Unfortunately, in many ways our physicality's have socially dictated our ‘social role assumptions’ and not projecting the sexual and romantic assumptions can be a challenge when we are also faced with the chemical and hormonal reactions that happen in our body when meeting someone we like, have been with, or just do not know.
Even how we define knowing someone, the amount of time needed to know someone, or the amount of knowledge or value of knowledge that has been exchanged in order to “know” another individual.
I think it’s normal for us to have and question an idea of who we should be friends with, the people we should be associating ourselves with, the person you should kiss, hug, hold your hand, have sex or a life with. To have an idea allows us a visualization of framework, a map if you will that allows us to have an idea of what will happen in the future. OUR existential ability in free will to choose what will happen may give us comfort and stability. Makes sense right? You can’t have other people make those decisions for you, because it’s you. But isn’t...to have an idea of what you want then meeting someone..automatically create a projection of wants and needs unto that individual? What does it mean to know someone for who they are and not what you want them to be? Femme, Masc, Neutral, Sane, Insane, Small, Large, Young, Middle Aged, Old...etc.
In a society that is slowing coming to terms with their own polyamorous and panromantic/sexual tendencies it may be difficult to balance, make sense, or even articulate what our minds seek to understand further versus what our bodies desire with at the same time looking at how we ourselves are positioned in relation to the individual you are attracted to. Without a degree of (idea invention) essentialism and articulation...uncertainty becomes a source of anxiety within PANPOLY connections.
Strategic Essentialism is a word used in Queer Theory to describe how labels and definitions still offer a valuable action in laying out a basic framework for an individual and create shared communities. The act of identifying.
But in an age of pansexual and polyamorous understanding of society, the act of practice becomes the labour.
The Hinduism have said that worrying about the past is depression and worrying about the future is anxiety...and personally I remember a time where it was almost impossible to function because one was exist on either ends of the spectrum. To live in the live in the moment is within itself a practice? Practicing mindfulness. Practicing Pronoun Respect. Practicing Art. Practicing Sex. Practicing Romance.
But Quare Theory, by Patrick Johnson a leader in Queer Of Colour Critique discusses the distinctions between Theory Versus Praxis. The requirements for certain individuals to actively empathic and dissect the lived experiences of everyday people instead of inventing new theoretical understanding. It is always a challenge to remove yourself from what you understand someones identity to be and look directly at ones individual experiences and practice.
"Quare" studies, or (almost) everything I know about queer studies I learned from my grandmother. E. Patrick Johnson
A literal practice in design and problem solving. Designing your own terms, rules, within connections instead of following the frame work of binary social roles.
There is even issues with the idea of spectrum because the spectrum theory itself creates a binary of one end to the other...why might someone have difficulty leaving the spectrum, the binary?
Control. I mean loosing control of your emotions, your body, your life has been bread into our psyche as a bad thing. Almost the definition of insanity. I learned from someone who has schizoaffective affective that sanity and institutional bias creates streams of normality that further stigmatize the neurodivergent and those members of disability studies. The social construction of mental illness and the subjectivity of individual health or informed consent. Social roles allow us a framework that allows for easy control of ourselves and others. Lets face it. Ignorance is brought on by assumption as they say. And only way to inform yourself is to ask questions, and at the same time not assuming that asking questions invents a motive. One could even argue we still live in a society that stigmatizes asking questions as abrasive, unnatural, and aggressive.
Which is fascinating when someone like Dr Brené Brown who studies human connection and humans ability to empathize, belong, and love discovered that in a study the differences between who have the most sense of worthiness, strong sense of love and belonging and those who struggle for worthiness who are always wondering if they are good enough.
“..and to me, the hard part of the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we are not worthy of connection.” - Dr Brene Brown
They had found that the commonalities who felt worthiness were the people who were able to be vulnerable, and individuals who are able to fully embrace vulnerability. They had courage to be imperfect, compassion for themselves. Talking about vulnerability as not comfortable but it being necessary. The willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. The willingness to say I love you first. And in my subjective opinion, I think these should be traits and attributes of polyamorous and panromantic/sexual individuals. As social scientists, art historians/critiques/curators, queer theorists, and trans studies researchers..our job is to control, predict, and archive. This contradiction, can be confusing in a conversation about love, and the articulation of feelings. Emotional Literacy.
“Here’s the thing, I’m struggling. Well I have a vulnerability issue and I know vulnerability is the core of shame and fear and our struggle for worthiness but it appears that it’s also the birthplace of joy, of creativity, of belonging, of love. And I think I have a problem, and I just need some help. ” - Dr Brene Brown
The link to Dr Brene Brown’s Lecture; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o
Your struggle may not be an absence of what you want but a struggle to accept yourself for being accepting in a society that is built on categories.. if you relate with pansexuality. By accepting and seeing beauty in the diverse instead of particular tropes, you yourself can become stigmatized as the whore, deviant, or sex addict. Projecting past experiences on to current prospects, friends, or colleagues. And then again there are people who identify with fetishism, and embrace the position sexual promiscuity..not to mention those who are sex workers and embrace that practice. Contradiction once again.
Google defines pansexuality as; not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity....but when if you don’t inhabit any of these identities or boxes? Pan-romantic has also been an idea embraced by the queer and non-queer community. But what does any of this have to do with control?
In a culture still defining love and romance as monogamy, how do gender variant or non-binary individuals navigate in a world that projects a sexual binary on to individuals but still placing expectations of “I love you for you” romance if both binary biases are still at play? Sexual and romantic binary. Do we then need a new definition of romanticism or does this already point out the distinction and/or contradictions between romance and intimacy?
If romance and the concept itself is quintessentially problematic under a non-binary framework, than are there only intimate acts? Non-Binary defined as not only those who do not identify as male or female but also those that do not inhabit a space of identity. Furthermore, one would view Non-Binary as space where contradiction is embraced. Embraced under not a frame work of social roles but consent and engagement.
Google defines intimacy as; a close familiarity or friendship; closeness as well as the intimate act of sexual intercourse. Which brings to light the contractions between romancism and and intimacy.
As it may be common to interchange the two..does friendship then even exist in a #PANPOLY society? If all feelings, thoughts, and acts between individuals are defined as complimentary actions that do not inhabit a permanent subject position. Transient thinking. Non-Linear Progression.
Ignorance in queer theory is not just defined as an unknowing of knowledge but also an unlearning of knowledge in order to learn new knowledge. Temporal knowledge of future generations to come and when what we may see are over laps in understanding and misunderstanding that prevent us from living our full potential.
So what is my social role, what is the dilemma? The dilemma is that myself who practices and understands pansexuality and polyamory am confronted with a constant implication of binary romance, sexuality, and gender that effects my ability to be understood. My role is to engage within a society that fears consistent engagement as an assumption of agreeance and commitment, when engagement is actually unambiguous of any framework. Intimate or platonic engagement may often be mistaken for romantic or sexual intention and the implication of any #PANPOLY interaction may require the articulation of emotional literacy and as discussed earlier our ability to embrace contradiction.
Wiki: The term was first used by Claude Steiner (1997) who says:
Emotional literacy is made up of 'the ability to understand your emotions, the ability to listen to others and empathize with their emotions, and the ability to express emotions productively. To be emotionally literate is to be able to handle emotions in a way that improves your personal power and improves the quality of life around you. Emotional literacy improves relationships, creates loving possibilities between people, makes co-operative work possible, and facilitates the feeling of community.
Before I end this post I also want to include a few chunks from Berkeley University’s article which points out ones ability to avoid what they define as THE “FOUR HORSEMEN” IN RELATIONSHIPS.
1. Criticism. Some forms of criticism are constructive, but in this case criticism refers to making negative judgments or proclamations about your partner in extreme, absolute terms. A sign that you may be engaging in this more harmful form of criticism is if you catch yourself using terms like “never” and always”—for example, “You never think about anyone but yourself!” or, “You are always so stubborn!”
2. Contempt. Contempt is a more destructive form of criticism that involves treating your partner with disrespect, disgust, condescension, or ridicule. It may involve mean-spirited sarcasm, mockery, eye-rolling, sneering, or name-calling. Contempt can grow over time when a person focuses on the qualities they dislike in their partner and builds up these qualities in their mind.
3. Defensiveness. Defensiveness tends to arise when people feel criticized or attacked; it involves making excuses to avoid taking responsibility, or even deflecting blame onto your partner. If you hear yourself saying “I didn’t do anything wrong,” or blaming your partner for something else after he or she has leveled a complaint against you, ask yourself whether this is really the case. Even if your partner made some mistakes, that doesn’t free you from responsibility for things you could have done differently as well. The problem with defensiveness is that it communicates to your partner that you aren’t really listening to her or taking his concerns seriously. And by introducing new grievances, it can also exacerbate the conflict by making your partner feel attacked and defensive.
4. Stonewalling. Stonewalling involves putting up a (metaphorical) wall between you and your partner by withdrawing, shutting down, and physically and emotionally distancing yourself from your partner. An example of stonewalling is to give your partner the “silent treatment” or to abruptly leave without telling your partner where you’re going. Stonewalling can sometimes result when the first three “horsemen” accumulate and become overwhelming. Stonewalling is especially destructive to relationships because it can make one’s partner feel abandoned and rejected.
But you can see the link to the original article here...http://ggia.berkeley.edu/practice/avoiding_the_four_horsemen_in_relationships
And I think the only realization I am having after writing this article is that even though I may have let go of control, jealousy, and possession years ago, relieving the fear of uncertainty and learning to embrace negotiation between individuals regardless of experiencing rejection still lingers as anxiety.
Furthermore, what I understand to be appropriate streams of thought may simply be subjective, inconclusive, and also explain others misunderstanding of my particular subject position.
Why has understanding and contradiction been interpreted as mutually exclusive?
May the articles written be an excessive interest in ones self or an archival diary of emotional literacy misunderstood by beings that still identify as human.
“You know how there are people that like when they realize that vulnerability and tenderness is important, that they surrender and walk into it? A: That’s not me B: I don’t even hang out with people like that.” - Dr Brene Brown
“You cannot selectively numb emotion. When you numb those, we numb joy and gratitude, we numb happiness. And then we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin.” - Dr Brene Brown